Posts Tagged ‘prime minister’

Parliaments, PMOs and Social Media

On Tuesday, 31 January 2012, Education Secretary Michael Gove appeared before the House of Commons Education Committee. It is the Committee’s mandate to monitor the policy, administration and spending of the Department for Education and its associated arms length bodies, and having the Minister give evidence allows them to scrutinize his work, performance and policies.

This in and of itself is not remarkable. What is different about this meeting is that in advance of the session, the Committee asked the public to suggest questions via twitter. By all accounts, this rather novel approach was a huge success:

“We have been overwhelmed by how many there have been… For the last few days, there have just been hundreds and hundreds and ultimately thousands, I think, of questions.”

Over 5000 questions were received via Twitter, and the last hour of Gove’s appearance before the committee was used for questions submitted that way. You can watch the proceedings here, if interested. Both the UK Parliament and Government have embraced social media tools (defined as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, etc.) to a far greater extent than have parliaments in other Commonwealth jurisdictions. I would like to use this post to highlight some of these initiatives. Please note that I will be focusing here primarily on the use of social media by national parliaments and Offices of the Prime Minister/cabinet, but not on government departments. I will also look at the parliaments of sub-national jurisdictions, such as the Canadian provincial legislatures and Australian state parliaments, but not in as great detail, nor will I focus on the use of social media by individual MPs. It is highly possible that I may miss something, and if this is the case, I will update the post as needed, should such an omission be brought to my attention.

The United Kingdom - Parliaments

There is an official UK Parliament Twitter account (@UKParliament) which regularly tweets the upcoming business of the House of Commons and its various select committees, as well as other relevant news items. The House of Lords has its own Twitter account (@UKHouseofLords) which does much the same, but focusing only on the upper Chamber.

The UK Parliament also has a Facebook page, a Flickr account, and a YouTube channel. The UK Parliament has organized these videos in 10 playlists: PMQs (going back to 12 October 2011), Select Committees, Parliament Tours, 20 Years of Televised Commons, The Speaker, People and Parliament Inquiry, Virtual Tour of Westminster Hall, The House of Lords, Education Series, and Big Ben.

While not an initiative of Westminster, I would like to also mention Lords of the Blog, a collective blog authored by various members of the House of Lords. The blog launched in 2008 and is sponsored by the Hansard Society. You can also follow the blog on Twitter (@lordsoftheblog).

The Scottish Parliament has a Twitter account (@ScotParl), while the Welsh Assembly makes use of Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube, as does the Northern Ireland Assembly (Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube). The Northern Ireland Assembly also maintains a blog, Assembly Round Up, which is described as being “not just about Assembly business, but also about some of the events, or behind-the-scenes activities.”

And while they don’t technically count as social media, I will mention that the Scottish and Welsh parliaments have online petitions schemes, although the Scottish Parliament’s e-petitions system is currently being overhauled, and so not active at the time of writing. And of course, I have written several posts about the e-petitions scheme launched by the UK Government in August 2011.

The United Kingdom – Prime Minister’s Office

On the Government side, the UK Prime Minister’s Office has an official Twitter account (@Number10gov), which bills itself as “The official twitter channel for Prime Minister David Cameron’s office, based at 10 Downing Street.” The website link associated with the account is to the official website of the Prime Minister’s Office (http://www.number10.gov.uk).

Consequently, the UK Prime Minister Twitter account is what I will be calling a “generic” account. By this I mean that it is associated with the Office of the Prime Minister and not specifically with the current incumbent of that office. Thus, if PM David Cameron left politics tomorrow, there would be no need to create a new Twitter account for whoever took over as the new Prime Minister. I mention this only because it presents a sharp contrast with the Twitter accounts of other prime ministers, as will be discussed below.

Number 10 also makes use of Facebook and Flickr. While the Flickr account, like the Twitter account is that of the Prime Minister’s Office, the Facebook page is David Cameron’s Facebook page, not a more generic Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Facebook page. There is also an “Official Number 10” iPhone app available, for the really diehard fans.

Cabinet Office also has a strong social media presence. There is a Twitter account (@cabinetofficeUK), Flickr account and YouTube channel. Cabinet Office supports the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, helping to ensure effective development, coordination and implementation of policy and operations across all government departments. It is headed by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg. Clegg has a Twitter account, but it is Nick Clegg’s official Twitter account, not a generic Deputy Prime Minister Twitter account.

And while I stated at the outset that I would not be discussing individual MPs’ use of social media, I will single out one cabinet minister in particular, Foreign Secretary William Hague. Hague is an avid user of Twitter and frequently holds Q&A sessions on Twitter wherein he solicits and answers questions from people on various aspects of foreign policy and international events.

Canada – Parliaments

Overall, Canadian parliaments are lagging in their adoption of social media.

The Canadian House of Commons does not make use of any social media, however, the Canadian Senate recently launched a Twitter account, @SenateCA.

Three Canadian provincial legislatures have started using social media: Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. The Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island has both a Twitter account and a Facebook page, as does the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan (Twitter, Facebook). The Nova Scotia House of Assembly has  Twitter account.

Canada – Prime Minister’s Office

In contrast to the Canadian Parliament’s notable absence on social media, the Prime Minister’s Office has embraced social media whole-heartedly. Some of the social media accounts are generic – meaning associated with the Office and not more personally with the current incumbent, while other accounts are official but personal (or partisan) and could not be used by the next Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of Canada website features links to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, as well as Google+ and podcasts. The Twitter, Facebook and Flickr accounts are associated with the PMO and link back to the PMO website. However, the Prime Minister has another Twitter account (@pmharper) which is more personal and partisan as the associated link is to the Conservative Party of Canada website. Similarly, the YouTube channel is heavily branded by the individual, with Stephen Harper’s name dominant. It does link back to the PMO website, but would require a significant overhaul before it could be used by another PM. The Google+ account is clearly a more personal Stephen Harper account rather than an official, generic Prime Minister of Canada account.

Australia – Parliaments

There are four Twitter accounts associated with the Australian Parliament. The Australian House of Representatives and Senate both have Twitter accounts (@AboutTheHouse and @AuSenate). The Hansard services also has a Twitter account (@AUS_Hansard), as does the Parliamentary Library (@ParlLibrary).

Four of Australia’s six states and two territories have social media presence. They are:

Australia – Prime Minister’s Office

Most of the social media accounts listed on the website of the Prime Minister of Australia would appear to be personal accounts rather than generic accounts for the post of PM rather than the current incumbent. The Facebook page is Julia Gillard’s page, the Twitter account (@JuliaGillard) is associated with the website of the Australian Labor Party, not the website of the Office of the Prime Minister. The Flickr account is Julia Gillard’s photostream. The only social media account that could be a generic account for the Office of the Prime Minister is the YouTube channel, but even there, it isn’t very clear. The account links back to the website of the Office of the Prime Minister, but the channel is called PMGillard’s Channel.

New Zealand – Parliament

The New Zealand Parliament has a Twitter account (@NZParliament).

New Zealand – Prime Minister’s Office

Prime Minister John Key has a Twitter account (@johnkeypm), but like the Australian PM’s account, it isn’t a generic Office of the Prime Minister account. It links to John Key’s Facebook page, and to his political website.

Related Posts:

Keyword post: Short answers to various queries

The following are answers to questions based on recent keyword search activity which has led people to this blog.

1. How many signatures does an e-petition require for it to be debated in the UK Parliament?

First of all, there is no guarantee that any petition will be debated in Parliament. Under the UK Government’s new e-petitions scheme, if an e-petition gets 100,000 signatures that will only guarantee that it will be referred to the Backbench Business Committee for consideration for debate in the House of Commons, however, the Committee is free to consider scheduling a debate on any petition, regardless of the number of signatures it receives. In other words, garnering 100,000 signatures will not guarantee a debate, and garnering fewer than 100,000 does not exclude the possibility of a debate. For a detailed explanation of this, please see this post. All petitions, however, will receive a response from the Government, once the period for signing them has closed.

2. If something happened to the Prime Minister, who would take over?

In countries such as Canada, the UK, etc., if the Prime Minister were incapacitated, decided to resign as his or her party leader or died suddenly, the party forming the government would simply name an interim leader from among its MPs. The interim leader would be acting Prime Minister while the party would hold a leadership race to choose a new leader, who would then automatically become the Prime Minister. These countries do not have presidential systems; prime ministers are not directly elected by voters to the post in general elections – the leader is chosen by the party. Parties can choose to change their leader at any time and for any reason, and if that party is the party that is forming the government, the new leader would become Prime Minister. Please see this post for information on how the Prime Minister becomes Prime Minister, and this post which addresses some related issues.

3. Who can force the Prime Minister out of office?

Since Prime Ministers in the UK and other countries are not directly elected by voters, they can’t really be forced out of office. The Prime Minister is simply an MP elected in a given constituency and who is also the leader of a political party which ends up forming the government. The surest way a PM can be removed from office by voters is for his or her party to be defeated in a general election. In between elections, however, a government can be removed from office if it loses the confidence of the House of Commons. Certain votes are considered confidence votes (the vote on the Speech from the Throne and the budget vote, for example). If a majority in the House vote against the government on these votes, the government is defeated. That could lead to a new election, or, depending on party standings in the House of Commons, another party might be asked to form the government. The party forming the government can also decide that it would prefer someone else to be its leader and force the current leader (and PM) to resign as party leader. The party would then choose a new leader, who would immediately become the Prime Minister. That party would still remain in power as the government, however.

4. How do I submit an e-petition to the Canadian House of Commons/provincial legislature?

Simply put, you can’t, unless you live in Quebec or in the Northwest Territories, which are the only legislatures in Canada which recognize or accept e-petitions. If you want to petition parliament or any other provincial legislature, you will have to do it the traditional way – print up your petition and collect real signatures on it. See this post for information on how to petitions legislatures in Canada.

5. Where I can find a picture of/more information about Eric Cameron Finance minister?

There is no such person as “Eric Cameron, Finance minister”. Eric Cameron is a fictional character in a novel, The Best Laid Plans, by Terry Fallis.

6. Who are the contesting parties for the post of Prime Minister in the UK?

No one contests for the post of prime minister since the prime minister is not elected directly by voters. The leader of whichever party ends up forming the government following a general election will become prime minister. In the case of a coalition government, as is currently the case  in the UK, traditionally the leader of the largest party in the coalition normally becomes prime minister. Currently in the UK, there are only two parties which have a realistic chance at forming the government on their own (i.e., winning a majority of the seats), and thus their leader would become the Prime Minister. These are Labour (currently led by Ed Miliband) and the Conservatives (led by David Cameron, who is currently Prime Minister leading a Coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats). Even if the next election resulted in another hung parliament, it would be either Miliband or Cameron who would end up as PM, depending on the actual seat results.

7. What happens if we elect a minority government in the Ontario election?

Voters don’t elect governments, they elect a parliament. If the election results in a hung (minority) parliament – in which no party wins a majority of the seats, there are many forms of government which could result. Please see this post for a full discussion of the various options that would be available for the parties to consider, depending on the actual results of the election.

8. In parliamentary systems, how much influence do the opposition parties have/how effective are the opposition parties?

There is no clear answer to this as it will depend on various factors such as the type of government in place and the circumstances the opposition parties find themselves in. For example, if an election results in a single-party majority government, the opposition parties will have very little influence. If an election results in a hung parliament, and a minority government emerges from that, the opposition parties are theoretically in a much stronger position since the minority government will require the support of some opposition members or parties in order to pass its legislation. This will force the government to include policies that it thinks will appeal to the opposition, or the opposition will be able to amend the legislation during committee stage. However, even in a minority government situation, sometimes the opposition parties find themselves in a very weakened position, and thus they are keen to avoid anything that might defeat the government and lead to an election since they themselves are not ready to fight an election. Perhaps they are in the midst of a leadership change, or their party is down in the polls, or they are having trouble raising money and can’t afford to fight an election. Because of this, they will be less likely to oppose the government.

In the case of a coalition government, such as is currently the case in the UK, while it does have a majority of seats, because the government is made up of two parties, this has the potential to make it more unstable than a single-party majority government. Also, UK MPs are much more independent than are their counterparts in countries such as Canada and Australia, where party discipline is very very strong and MPs rarely defy the party whips. Therefore in the UK, even government backbench MPs often oppose their own government.

Related Posts:

Parlour games?

The Guardian’s Nicholas Watt recently wrote that the ongoing phone-hacking scandal and Prime Minister David Cameron’s closeness to central players in the Murdoch empire (e.g. Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson) leaves him vulnerable to having Nick Clegg “pull the plug” not on the coalition, but on Cameron himself:

This is where the eyes of Lib Dems really light up. If damaging details emerge Clegg could go to Cameron and say that his party is deeply committed to the coalition but it can no longer serve under him as prime minister. At this point Cameron has to decide: does he sacrifice his career to save the coalition, paving the way for another Tory to take his place as prime minister, or does he soldier on as leader of a deeply unstable minority administration?

Lib Dems are enjoying the prospect of bringing down Cameron. It would allow them to go into the next election saying they had saved two cherished British institutions – the NHS and the office of the prime minister.

In fairness, Watt admits that this is “the remotest of remote prospects”, “all very far-fetched and belongs in the world of a fantasy parlour game”. I would tend to agree with that, and wonder why Watt bothered to posit the possibility of this occurring.

There is no doubt that Cameron has been weakened by this scandal, and things could possibly get worse for him, as Watt notes. However, I wonder if the Liberal Democrats really would have anything to gain by forcing Cameron to resign.

The coalition government came about largely because of Cameron. There were, and are, a fair number of both Tory MPs and Tory supporters who would have preferred that the Conservatives govern on their own as a minority government, and believe that the party has made too many compromises in order to satisfy the Liberal Democrats. There are also a fair number of Conservative party supporters who have never really liked David Cameron, and who don’t think he’s sufficiently right-wing, if the comment sections on traditionally pro-Conservative media sites such as the Telegraph, ConservativeHome and the Spectator are anything to go by.

If the Lib Dems did present Cameron with an ultimatum such as the one Watt puts forward, and Cameron did decide to step down, I don’t know who might emerge as the new party leader. Someone the Lib Dems could still work with, such as George Osborne? Or someone far more “traditionally conservative” such as David Davis? There is no guarantee that the new leader would be as willing to continue with a coalition, and the Liberal Democrats could find themselves in an even more difficult situation.

The Liberal Democrats are still struggling in the polls. If they attempted a coup against Cameron, it seems to me that regardless the outcome, it would result in a general election. If, when presented with such an ultimatum, Cameron refused to resign, the Lib Dems would have to pull out of the coalition. A Conservative minority government could then easily be defeated in a confidence vote, resulting in an election that would most likely be won by Labour and that would also most likely see the Lib Dems decimated. If Cameron did agree to step down, and was replaced by someone far more traditionally Tory, it might become impossible for the Lib Dems to continue in the coalition, which would force them to pull out, which then would most likely lead to an election, or the new leader might decide to call an election to seek a new mandate. Either way, this would spell major trouble for the Liberal Democrats.

Watt may be right when he states that:

But nobody should forget that relations between Cameron and Clegg changed forever when the prime minister – in the eyes of his deputy – broke his words to allow the No campaign in the AV campaign to turn on him.

Clegg is not out for revenge. But any warmth he felt towards Cameron evaporated for good in the spring.

This does not, however, mean that the two cannot continue to work together. And I am not entirely convinced that the relationship between Clegg and Cameron has soured that much. The Constitution Unit’s interim report on the inner workings of the coalition, released in June of this year, indicates that the two continue to work well together. As stated in the press release:

Despite the political strains which have affected the coalition in recent months, the Constitution Unit’s research on how the coalition works shows that it has functioned very well in its first year. Viewed from inside, the ructions which have dominated the headlines have not destroyed the coalition’s effectiveness.

I agree with Watt that the prospect of this possible power play against Cameron by Clegg is extremely remote. I can’t see that there would be much, if anything, for the Lib Dems to gain from such a move. Cameron, as far as I can tell, remains conmitted to the idea of coalition government; many in his party, including many MPs, less so. And I don’t think such a plot is in the making, given that even more left-wing members of the Lib Dems are refraining from directly attacking Cameron. If anything, a weakened Cameron might well strengthen the hand of the Lib Dems within the coalition; ousting him would more likely than not leave the Lib Dems in a more vulnerable position.

Related Posts:

Some interesting links

1. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s appearance before the House of Lords Constitution Committee

On 18 May 2011, UK Deputy PM Nick Clegg appeared before the Lords Select Constitution Committee to discuss issues such as the AV referendum aftermath, Lords reform and other constitutional matters. You can watch that session here.

2. Role and Powers of the Prime Minister

The UK Commons Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform is currently conducting an inquiry into the Role and Powers of the Prime Minister. They’ve published on volume of written evidence, and one submission stood out for me, a paper by the Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, FBA, Attlee Professor of Contemporary History, School of History, Queen Mary, University of London, which looks at the functions of the Prime Minister as they have evolved from 1947, 2005, to 2011.  The list has grown from 12 items in 1947 to 47 today.

3. Parliament’s role in conflict decision

The UK Commons Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform looked into the matter of the role of Parliament in decisions to commit British forces to armed conflict abroad. You can read their final report here (HTML version) or here for the PDF.

4. Antony’s Green Australian State Election Archive

For anyone interested in all things electoral from Australia, elections expert Antony Green has been engaging in an archiving project of his collection of electoral material. The material available concerns Australian state electoral publications. You can access the archive here.

5. Up a gum tree

I’d linked to this Financial Times article in a post about Australia’s Question Time, but feel it warrants another plug. In this lengthy piece, Matthew Engel looks at how Australia’s hung parliament is working – or rather, not working.

Related Posts:

Keyword post: Some answers to search results

This post will provide answers to actual search engine queries that led people to this blog. None of these would really make a full blog post on their own, which is why I’ve decided to answer a few in one post.

1. How many people did/didn’t vote for David Cameron?

This one is very easy to answer. Exactly 23,796 people did not vote for David Cameron in the May 2010 general election. Cameron stood for election in the constituency of Witney, opposed by nine other candidates. Voter turnout in that riding was 57,769 (73.8%), and of that, 33,973, or 58.8% voted for Cameron, meaning 23,796 voters voted for other candidates.

It is important to remember that in parliamentary systems such as those we have in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc., people do not vote directly for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is simply whichever MP is also leader of the party which forms the government. Please see this post for more information.

2. Has the fixed term parliaments bill passed/been defeated?

The fixed term parliaments bill received Royal Assent on 15 September 2011. You can track the progress of any bill currently before Parliament on the Bills before Parliament page of the UK Parliament’s website.

3. What is the procedure to recall a Canadian Member of Parliament (MP)?

There is no procedure to recall MPs in Canada. There is only one jurisdiction in Canada (indeed, in the entire Commonwealth) which has recall legislation, and that is the province of British Columbia. The UK Coalition Government has introduced a draft bill on MP recall. You can read more about how recall works in British Columbia in this post.

4. How does one address the Lieutenant Governor in a speech?

“Your Honour” first, then “Sir” or “Madam” or “Mr./Mrs./Ms./Miss (name)”.

Everything you ever wanted to know about styles of address can be found here. You may want to consult this post for other useful political resources.

5. How many people voted for the NDP?

For any elections-related questions, your first stop should always be Elections Canada. In the 2 May 2011 general election, 4,508,474 voters across the country cast votes for an NDP candidate, or 30.63% of voters who bothered to turnout for the election (turnout was 61.4%).

6. Does the government know what questions will be coming forward in question period?

Yes and no. In Canada, the opposition does not usually provide the government with advance notice of what questions it intends to ask, however, there is nothing preventing it from doing so. Indeed, if there is a question that an opposition MP feels the government might not expect to have come up, he or she might inform the Minister concerned beforehand that they intend to raise the matter during oral questions. In general, the government will have a good sense of what questions to expect because the opposition will hone in on any topic that is currently in the news. As well, the government carefully scripts the questions asked by its own backbenchers, so those questions (and their answers) are quite carefully rehearsed.

In the UK, questions for departments must be submitted three days in advance, specifically to give the concerned minister the time to prepare answers. However, the last 10-15 minutes of each day’s questions are reserved for “topical questions”, which aren’t submitted ahead of time, so the minister will not know exactly what questions to expect (although he or she, like their Canadian counterparts, can assume they will be on more current matters). Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) aren’t submitted ahead of time, although loyal government MPs will often give Downing Street advance notice of their question, or try to ask something ‘helpful’ – possibly to try to impress the PM or those looking out for future ministerial talent. But the PM can be asked about anything at all for which the government is responsible, which means they have to be up to speed on all areas of policy.

Related Posts:

Keyword post: How does the Prime Minister end up Prime Minister?

It seems a few readers have been looking for information on the procedure for electing a Prime Minister.

In a parliamentary system such as we have in Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc., the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the voters. They are a Member of the legislative body in question, and so elected as the representative of whichever constituency they run in. They are also the leader of a political party. They only become Prime Minister if their party ends up forming the government, either on its own or as part of a coalition or other arrangement.They do not have to be the leader of the party which has the most seats in the legislature – rather, they are the leader of the party which can command the confidence of the House. For example, in the UK, David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, was elected to the House of Commons as the Member of Parliament (MP) for Witney. Because the Conservatives formed the government in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, Cameron is now Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Similarly, in Canada, Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party, was elected to the House of Commons as the Member of Parliament for Calgary Southwest. The party won a majority of seats in the last general election and so forms the government, making Harper the Prime Minister of Canada. Voters in the UK did not vote for Cameron directly for the post of Prime Minister, nor did voters in Canada vote directly for Harper as Prime Minister. They were elected in their constituencies as an MP.

Political parties choose their leaders by various means, but to simplify, there is usually a leadership contest, where interested persons can put themselves forward as candidates. To be a candidate they have to be a member of the party, and each party will have certain other requirements that will have to be met, such as gaining the support of a certain number of party members or sitting Members of Parliament, etc. The leadership campaigns will usually include debates between the various candidates, and the candidates will travel across the country meeting party members in different parts of the country to try to gather their support.

Most parties will then have a leadership convention, where party members will vote for which candidate they want as leader. Again, each party will have different procedures in place. Some parties elect delegates from each constituency to attend the convention and cast votes. Others give each member a vote if they attend the convention. Others will mail out ballots to every member so that they can vote even if they don’t attend the convention, etc.

Some political parties in some countries limit the choice of leader to members of the party’s elected caucus, meaning only the party’s elected MPs will choose the next leader. Party members have no say in the matter. Some parties combine both – the caucus will do the initial selection of candidates and narrow the choice down to two candidates, and then the party membership at large will have the final say between those two individuals. In the end, the result is the same, one candidate will be elected the leader of the party. (If you want to know how a specific political party chooses its leader, I would recommend visiting that party’s official website and finding the party’s constitution. That document usually details the process the party follows for selecting a leader. If that information is not readily available on the party’s website, you could also try contacting an elected representative of that party and asking them how the party chooses its leader.)

If that party is already the governing party, the new leader automatically becomes Prime Minister. They don’t have to wait until a new election is called. Often, a new leader will decide to call an election soon after they take over the party in order to seek a new mandate from voters for the party under their leadership, but they are not obligated to do this. They can just as easily serve out the remainder of the parliamentary term before going to the polls.

Sometimes, there is no actual leadership contest. For example, when Tony Blair announced that he was stepping down as leader of the Labour Party, Gordon Brown became leader without facing any leadership contest. This wasn’t because no one else was interested in the position, it was because an agreement had been reached that Blair would step down and Brown would become leader. A similar situation occurred in Canada when Jean Chrétien stepped down as leader of the Liberal Party. It was expected that Paul Martin would be the next leader (it was Martin’s supporters who pushed Chrétien to resign). One other MP did enter the race, Sheila Copps, but it was a foregone conclusion that Martin would win, and he did, with 94% of the vote. Sometimes, the party might feel there isn’t time for a proper leadership race, and so the party caucus decides on a leader. This occurred in Canada following the 2008 election. The Liberals did not do well in that election, and the party leader, Stéphane Dion, announced he would resign. However, because it was a minority government situation, the party felt it couldn’t afford to go through a normal leadership process and so the caucus decided that MP Michael Ignatieff, who had finished second to Dion in the previous leadership contest, would become party leader.

Sometimes a party chooses a leader who doesn’t have a seat in the legislative body. In those instances, the party appoints an acting leader among sitting MPs to deal with business in the House (if the House is in session at the time) until the actual leader can win a seat, either in the next general election, or via a by-election. For example, in the Canadian province of British Columbia, Christy Clark was elected leader of the Liberal party to replace outgoing leader and Premier Gordon Campbell. Clark had been out of politics for a few years, and so did not have a seat in the provincial legislature. She won the party leadership on February 26, 2011, and was sworn in as premier on March 14, 2011, even though she did not have a seat. When Campbell resigned as leader, he also resigned his seat as an MLA, and a by-election was held on May 11, 2011, which Clark contested for and won.

It is important to remember that voters in countries such as Canada and the UK elect parliaments, not governments, and that it is the elected parliament that determines which party or parties will command the confidence of the House and form the government. Who leads that party is not what matters – what matters is that government maintain the confidence of the House. For example, when Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair as leader of the Labour Party, and by default became Prime Minister, there were frequent accusations made in the media that he didn’t have a mandate because he had not been elected to that office. What people meant is that Brown had not called an election soon after taking over the party leadership, to see if Labour, with him as leader, could win another mandate from the people. However, it isn’t accurate to say he had no mandate because he wasn’t elected. The 2005 general election had resulted in Labour winning a majority of seats in the House of Commons, and thus the party was fully entitled to serve out the entirety of its term.

The fact that Labour had changed leaders during that term was essentially an internal party administrative matter; it did not impact the configuration of the House of Commons, and Labour still commanded the confidence of the House. Brown was elected as an MP, he was also selected by Labour as their leader. To say he wasn’t elected Prime Minister is unfair – no Prime Minister is elected by the people to that post, they are only elected as a local MP. Similarly, as mentioned above, Christy Clark became Premier of British Columbia when she won the leadership of the Liberal Party earlier this year. British Columbia has fixed-term elections, and the next election is scheduled for May 2013. There is nothing in the fixed-term election act that requires an earlier election because the governing party changes leader at some point during a parliamentary term. The only thing that would potentially prompt an earlier election is if the Liberal Party lost the confidence of the Legislative Assembly, or if Clark decided to ignore the fixed-term election law and call an early election.

This may strike some as bizarre and undemocratic, but it isn’t if one understands how the system works. We elect MPs, who form a parliament. Parliament decides which party or group of parties will command the confidence of the House and form the government. Who leads that party is up to the party to decide.

Related Posts:

Watch those open mics

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Prime Minister David Cameron were in Nottingham promoting the government’s budget. During a round of applause, Clegg was caught off mic saying to Cameron:

“If we keep doing this we won’t find anything to bloody disagree on in a bloody TV debate.”

You can hear it for yourself on The World At One. It’s at the 7:13 mark.

Related Posts:

Lessons Learned – Part 2

Continuing my discussion of the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s recent report, Lessons from the process of Government formation after the 2010 General Election, in this section, I will look at their findings regarding when a Prime Minister should resign and the appointment of the new Prime Minister.

Parliamentary custom and convention dictate that, in the event of a hung Parliament, the incumbent Prime Minister has the right to remain in office and attempt to form a government that will command the confidence of the House of Commons.

The PM has another important constitutional duty to fulfill, and that is to “ensure that the Monarch is not without an advisor, and therefore to remain in office until the identity of his successor is clear.”(p. 10). Another distinction the report makes clear is that the above does not mean that the PM has to remain in office until it is known what sort of government will be in place (minority, coalition, etc.), or until the new government is ready to take office. His or her obligation is to remain in office only until his or her successor is known.

This is an important distinction because former Labour PM Gordon Brown faced intense media and political pressure following the May 2010 election. On the one hand, we learned that Cabinet Office and Palace officials were putting pressure on him to stay on longer than he perhaps wanted to, or felt he needed to, and at the same time, many in the media were accusing him of being a “squatter” in 10 Downing Street, arguing that he had lost the election and therefore should clear out ASAP.

In a BBC documentary on the heady days following the May election, Five Days that Changed Britain (see summary post here), Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg states that on the fifth day following the vote, he called Brown asking him to stay on until the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition deal was finalized:

I did ask him to just kind of hold on, that there was some sort of constitutional propriety, if you like, given that he was the acting prime minister, to wait to see whether a stable government could be formed before he went to the Palace. I didn’t think it was right, and I still don’t think it was right, for one person in that triangle to unilaterally declare “I’m fed up with this” and pull the plug on the entire process.

The Committee looked into this matter in some detail and concluded that Brown resigned “at a constitutionally appropriate time. He did not have a constitutional obligation to remain in office for longer, nor to resign sooner.”(p. 11) The Committee notes, citing the Institute for Government, that when Brown resigned, it was clear that Labour could not hold on to power and that David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, was the only person who would be able to command the confidence of the House. It was not yet known if Cameron would govern with a minority government, or if the deal with the Lib Dems would result in a coalition, but that didn’t matter.

In short, there are three important points at play here: the right of the incumbent PM to continue in office to face a confidence vote in the House of Commons, the duty of the PM to ensure that the Monarch is not without an advisor, and finally, the obligation of the PM to resign when it is clear that someone else is better placed to command the confidence of the House.

Once one Prime Minister has resigned, another must be appointed. In the UK, this process occurs thus: the incumbent Prime Minister informs the Monarch that he or she is resigning and advises the Monarch on whom should be appointed as the next PM. This person will then be asked by the Monarch to form a government.

Some testifying before the Committee proposed that this process should be replaced by an investiture vote. The Institute for Government defines an investiture vote as “a formal vote among MPs on who should be invited to form the new government.” The final say on the matter would remain with the Monarch, but the power to name the next PM would move from the incumbent Prime Minister to the House of Commons.

As the Committee notes:

At present, there is no transparent link between the results of a general election and the formation of a government. A general election returns a House of Commons, and a Prime Minister can only govern if he can command the confidence of the House. But the Queen chooses a Prime Minister after a general election on the basis of how her advisers think the newly elected House will vote, without asking the House first. This is partly a matter of history, partly to allow a Government to begin work without waiting for the House to meet, and partly because the results of elections are often clear.(p. 12)

Those in favour of an investiture vote, such as the Institute for Government argue that it would be “more comprehensible to the general public, and would demonstrate that the government has the confidence of the Parliament that the people have just democratically elected.”(p. 12) Some added that such a vote would “reduce the risk of the Monarch being drawn into the political process of determining who is best placed to form a government following an election producing a hung Parliament.”(p. 13)

Those who oppose introducing an investiture vote mostly question what added value such a vote would bring. While it might have some value in the event of a hung parliament, it would appear rather pointless following an election which resulted in a clear, single-party majority. A bigger issue is how quickly such a vote could take place. Unlike Canada, where there is no fixed timetable for when the House of Commons meets following an election, the UK Parliament normally meets for the first time on the Wednesday following a Thursday election. However, the first sitting day is reserved for the election of the Speaker, the next three sitting days are for the swearing in of the elected Members. As the Committee notes:

if current practice were continued, the first opportunity that the House would have to hold an investiture vote would be nearly two weeks after the election. Even if this timetable were to be compressed, an investiture vote would cause some delay in any transition between administrations.(p. 13)

In the end, the Committee suggests that it is an idea that they may wish to consider further in the future.

Personally, I have mixed feelings regarding an investiture vote, but lean more towards thinking it isn’t something to be adopted. As stated above, in the event of a party winning a clear majority of seats, it would seem like a rather pointless exercise. The opposition MPs could all vote against the majority party, but it wouldn’t change anything – that party would still form the government, and its leader would be Prime Minister with the confidence of the House – even if that confidence came only from its own members. And in the event of a hung parliament, it could potentially result in a very messy situation. For example, if an election returned a very close result between two main parties, and lots of minor parties, what if neither of the two main parties managed to secure a decisive investiture vote? It might seem far-fetched, but given the current political climate in Canada, for example, I could see something like that happening. If the next election returns another hung parliament (as it most likely will) with the Conservatives still the party with the most seats (as will likely be the case), I could easily see the three opposition parties refusing to support the Conservatives in an investiture vote. However, there is so much acrimony between all the parties, I could also easily see the Liberals losing such a vote, a Liberal-NDP alliance or coalition losing such a vote, etc. I have reservations about giving overly partisan parties yet another tool with which to play highly partisan games. The current system works, both in the UK and in Canada – I see no need to change it.

My next, and probably last installment, will look at the Report’s findings regarding the Coalition’s Programme for Government, and how it compares to a proper party manifesto.

Related Posts:

Not the best, but somewhat trusted

I haven’t blogged about the myriad of opinion poll which appear pretty much weekly in the UK because I don’t think polls conducted between elections – particularly when no election is expected any time soon – really contribute much to the debate. The way the media has followed the (mostly downward) path of the Lib Dem poll numbers week after week proves my point – all it does is spark a flurry of very premature columns and articles forecasting the demise of the party – a Lib Dem deathwatch, if you will. A week is a long time in politics – five years is an eternity. Let’s talk about Lib Dem poll numbers in 2015, shall we?

That said, I am going to comment on a poll released earlier this week, conducted by ICM for the Guardian. This poll asked people which of the three main party leaders would make the best prime minister. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this question asked, and the result is quite similar this time around – Nick Clegg came in last behind David Cameron (38%) and Ed Miliband (25%). Clegg garnered a meager 12%.

I can understand why Cameron would come out ahead – he actually is Prime Minister and thus it’s easier for people to imagine him in the role. Whenever they see him on the the news, he’s doing all that prime ministerial stuff – giving speeches, slapping down the opposition during PMQs, meeting with heads of state, etc. Miliband, on the other hand, has two things going against him – he’s not been Labour leader for very long, and so people probably don’t have a very good sense of him yet, and he’s also leader of the Opposition – meaning he’s mostly been attacking the Government rather than putting forward clear policies of his own. It’s difficult to appear prime ministerial when you’re constantly attacking and complaining about things.

Clegg, however, because of the coalition, is in a rather unique position for a leader of a third place party. He is in government, and has a very high profile role. As Deputy Prime Minister, he’s front and centre on some of the coalition’s most prominent policies – electoral reform, constitutional reform, civil liberties issues, etc. Unlike Miliband, he has demonstrated real leadership abilities – from being willing to enter into a coalition in the first place to getting the bulk of his Lib Dem caucus to support some of the more difficult policies the coalition has introduced, not to mention steering some difficult pieces of legislation through the House of Commons. People see him regularly on the news, being interviewed, giving speeches, meeting with fairly important people, doing his own Deputy PMQs, and filling in for Cameron when needed, etc.

If the Lib Dems weren’t part of government, and Clegg was simply leader of the 3rd place party in the House of Commons, I could easily understand why few would consider him PM material – he simply wouldn’t be on anyone’s radar. But to still be in third place when he’s arguably one of the most important and prominent political figures in the country? I don’t get it.

I have a theory, which I can’t prove at all. I think in part people aren’t necessarily responding to the question based solely on the perceived leadership skills of the party leaders, but are also taking into consideration how realistic it is that said leader might actually be prime minister. The reality is that the Lib Dems will never win a general election outright (well, not any time in the perceivable future), and thus their leader will never be PM. I think people being asked the question “Which party leader would make the best PM” are filtering the question – unintentionally and unconsciously – so that they hear “Of the two blokes who actually have a shot at being PM, which one do you think would be the best?”

Of course, this theory falls apart if we try to apply it to Canada. Canadian pollster frequently ask the same question here, but in the most recent polls, Jack Layton, leader of the 4th party in the House of Commons (the NDP), finished second behind the incumbent PM, Conservative Stephen Harper. Liberal leader and leader of the Opposition, Michael Ignatieff, came in third. Leader of the 3rd party, the BQ’s Gilles Duceppe is never mentioned, so I don’t know if Ipsos Reid include him as an option when they ask the question. If they do, I assume he came in 4th.

If my theory worked in Canada, Layton would be 3rd behind the incumbent PM and the leader of the opposition, but nothing in Canada is working properly anymore. Still, there are good reasons to explain Layton’s 2nd place ranking.  Layton is the longest serving leader of the three main national parties (I too will leave the BQ out of this since they run candidates only in Quebec), having won the leadership of his party in 2003. He is generally well-liked by the Canadian public, even among those who have no intention of ever voting for his party. Unlike in the UK, leaders’ debates have been a regular feature of Canadian general elections for decades now  and all leaders of parties with seats in the House of Commons participate (and in the most recent debates, they even included the leader of the Green Party, even though the Greens do not have any elected MPs), meaning Layton has been in three national debates and benefited from that exposure – much the same way Clegg did in 2010. Ignatieff, on the other hand, has been Liberal leader for barely two years, has not yet had the opportunity to participate in a leaders’ debate, and since the Canadian media pretty much ignore the opposition parties inbetween elections, he’s had a very difficult time building much of a national profile.

Canada aside, I still find Clegg’s “best PM” numbers somewhat disappointing, all things considered. They seem to conflict with the findings of another poll, this one by ComRes for ITV, which asked which politician people trusted to see the country through the current economic situation. That poll found:

The Prime Minister has the trust of 37 per cent – down from his 43 per cent rating last October. Mr Osborne, the Chancellor, has the trust of 25 per cent – down from 32 per cent.

Although Labour is ahead of the Tories in most opinion polls, it has not yet regained its economic credentials. Only 18 per cent of people trust Mr Miliband to sort out the country’s economic problems and only 14 per cent Mr Balls. They trail Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, who scores 24 per cent.

So people trust Clegg (more than Labour’s Miliband and Balls) with regards to the economy, but don’t think he’d make a good PM.

Perhaps he should take over as Chancellor of the Exchequer then?

Related Posts:

The hatreds will always be there

There was an interesting op-ed piece in the Guardian this weekend on the plight of former prime ministers. While focusing on former British PMs, the same certainly applies to former Canadian PMs.

In the US, where the office of President – if not always the individual holding the office – is revered, former presidents are not only granted respect once they leave office, but are frequently called upon by incumbent presidents for advice, or to lead high profile missions abroad. They continue to play prominent roles in US politics and society. Even those who leave office in disgrace, such as Richard Nixon, usually end up rehabilitated to a degree with the passage of time: their accomplishments in office are acknowledged, and their disgraces, while not exactly swept under the rug, aren’t focused upon as intently.

This is probably largely due to the fact that US presidents are the head of state, elected directly by the people, while prime ministers are the head of government, and more importantly, the leader of a party. A party in power can decide to change its leader part-way through their term in office and replace him or her with someone else, as has recently happened in Australia, and has happened in the UK when Tony Blair resigned, replaced by Gordon Brown, and in Canada, when Jean Chrétien was replaced by Paul Martin. The voting public has no say in this – it is, for all intents and purposes, a bit of administrative housekeeping.

This illustrates clearly how parliamentary systems work: we in countries such as Australia, Canada and the UK, do not elect our head of government, the government is formed by MPs, the post of PM filled by whichever MP happens to be leader of the party that forms the government (or in the case of a coalition, usually the leader of the largest party in the coalition). If the party becomes dissatisfied with the person leading it, it is the party’s prerogative to change leaders. In some ways, the leader is almost incidental, but the irony is that the leader comes to symbolise the party and government in the minds of the general public. While we know that we don’t actually vote for the PM, many people do indeed vote with that in mind – who they would like to see (or certainly don’t want to see) in the post of Prime Minister.

However, does this mean that once out of office, former PMs should be discarded to the annals of history? Certainly their time in power would allow them to accrue a great deal of insight into both domestic and world affairs that could be, and should be, of great value to the country. But that is not what happens. For the most part, we do not call upon their expertise. Incumbent PMs do not seek out their advice, nor do they ask them to play prominent roles on behalf of the country internationally (or domestically). In some cases, former PMs prefer to return to some sort of private life, eschewing the public spotlight, working quietly for causes dear to their heart. But in general, as Glover notes: “Leaders are driven out either by their party or the country; and either way are left haunted by a sort of ignominy for which we expect them to do unspoken penance. They become relics of old conflicts. Thatcher is just as toxic now to the left as she ever was; Brown will never be forgotten by the right. Blair will never be able to shake off Iraq.” The same holds true in Canada: Brian Mulroney will forever be a reminder of failed constitutional talks and the Free Trade Agreement, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin of the sponsorship scandal, Joe Clark of bumbling incompetence.

Party allegiance is a much bigger factor in parliamentary systems than it is in the US. The president is not the leader of the party he or she represents in the way the prime minister is the actual leader of the party that he or she represents. If anything, they are party leader first, PM second. In the US, the people may elect their president from one party, but ensure Congress and the Senate are dominated by the other, while in parliamentary systems, it is impossible to separate the executive and legislative branches this way. And even when one party controls the White House, Senate and House of Representatives in the US, as President Obama has learned, that is no guarantee that the president’s policies will get through.  There is also an understanding that the president is the the leader of the entire nation first and foremost, and that they achieved office because the people, not their party, put them there. This inherent respect for the office of president goes beyond the party affiliation of the individuals who hold, or have held, that office, which is why incumbents can easily reach out to their predecessors across party lines. Party affiliation doesn’t really matter. What matters is that they were elected by the people to the highest office.

Such outreach by a sitting PM to former prime ministers, even those of the same party, very rarely happens in parliamentary systems. The one exception might be Margaret Thatcher in the UK. While it isn’t very surprising that David Cameron invited her to 10 Downing Street after he became PM, Gordon Brown did the same thing when he became PM, which raised a few eyebrows. But in both cases, Dame Thatcher was merely invited to visit 10 Downing – she was not asked to take on any role or act on behalf of the government.

In parliamentary systems, party allegiance is certainly a key obstacle preventing sitting prime ministers from reaching out to former PMs, but there is another factor as well – internal party politics. If a sitting prime minister feels pressure from his or her party to step aside for someone else, it isn’t unexpected that there will be much resentment, even hostility, between the ousted leader and the person who replaces him or her that will last long after they are both out of office. This was clearly the case between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the UK, and between Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin here in Canada.

This is perhaps a weakness of our parliamentary system. I don’t know if there is an easy way to overcome our tradition of dumping former PMs on the trash heap of history. Certainly, nothing would stop a sitting prime minister from reaching out to former PMs, but it is unlikely to happen, especially if this outreach were to cross party lines. Our party system is such a dominant feature of our politics, it doesn’t easily allow one party to acknowledge the contributions of another. Still, part of me would like to see our former PMs play a more prominent role in our nation’s political life, acting as a sort of éminence grise. This would be a far better role for them to play than acting as a panel of judges on a television program the way former PMs Kim Campbell, Joe Clark, Paul Martin and Brian Mulroney have done here in Canada. If that is the best we, as a nation, can offer our former PMs, that is a rather sad state of affairs.

Related Posts: